Extensions to the Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) Access Network Identifier Option
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.
(Brian Haberman) Yes
(Jari Arkko) No Objection
(Alia Atlas) No Objection
(Richard Barnes) (was Discuss) No Objection
Comment (2015-03-19 for -08)
Thanks for a good discussion of confidentiality protections in the Security Considerations. It would be helpful if you could also note that another way to address the concerns here is to provision location information at the least granular level possible. Suggested: "The other way to protect the sensitive location information of network users is of course to not send it in the first places. Users of the civic location sub option should provision location values with the highest possible level of granularity, e.g., to the province or city level, rather than provisioning specific addresses. In addition to helping protect private information, reducing granularity will also reduce the size of the civic location sub option." I cleared because it looks like we are agreed on point (4) of my DISCUSS, i.e., that the XML/URI-based option will be removed in favor of just using the DHCP option. I trust Brian and the authors will make sure the change is made.
(Benoît Claise) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection
(Adrian Farrel) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell) No Objection
Comment (2015-03-05 for -08)
- What if the network being identified here was a tethering n/w or any other kind of n/w that's carried about by a person? In that case ANI, and these new options, would be privacy invasive. Does that statement exist in one of the RFCs referred to in section 6? If not, would it be worth adding here, even though it might better belong elsewhere? - intro: What if a WLAN operator has no realm? - intro: DPI? What's that got to do with it? I'd suggest removing that.